The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
Little Dorrit
Dickens Project
>
Little Dorrit, Book II, Chapters X-XIV
date
newest »
newest »
Fanny is self-absorbed, and she will always come first to the detriment of anyone who gets in her way. But that doesn't mean she doesn't understand more than she lets on, and I can't help thinking she remembers what happened to her family when her father's creditors imprisoned him. The Merdles may represent the class of people who are those creditors, especially Mrs. Merdle. Once married into the family, she will unmercifully make Mrs. Merdle's life a living hell. And her son's. Can you imagine the havoc Fanny will wreak at Merdle social gatherings? Mrs. Merdle will be apoplectic, and there will be little she can do about it. In short Fanny is getting even, while ensuring her financial security.
I think Fanny is observant and clever, even if her cleverness is misused. She knows exactly how to make Mr. Sparkler dance to her tune: "I'll make a slave of him," she says, and we believe her. She's very aware of Mrs Merdle's attitude towards her - as Xan comments, it's easy to imagine the havoc she could deliberately wreak within the Merdles' circle.Given her astuteness, I wonder if she is right about Mrs General having designs on Mr Dorrit?
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Fanny is self-absorbed, and she will always come first to the detriment of anyone who gets in her way. But that doesn't mean she doesn't understand more than she lets on, and I can't help thinking..."I liked how she worded her potential experience of being married and being someone's daughter-in law. 'I will not,' said Fanny, without answering the question, 'submit to be mother-in-lawed by Mrs General; and I will not submit to be, in any respect whatever, either patronised or tormented by Mrs Merdle.'
Emma wrote: "I think Fanny is observant and clever, even if her cleverness is misused. She knows exactly how to make Mr. Sparkler dance to her tune: "I'll make a slave of him," she says, and we believe her. She..."She is very perceptive and observant, and she might smell something in the air.
With regards to the time I think we are now changing from one place to another showing the events. While Arthur received Amy's letter, Blandois also arrived in London. Pet seems very relieved about that fact.
I was also amazed about the way Mrs Clennam was standing up for Blandois against her son and then asks her son to leave them to business. Is he blackmailing her and it has to do with the watch? He mentioned to Ms Wade in chapter 9 that he had a place where he could get money. Did he mean Mrs Clennam?
Pet is really imprisoned in her marriage. She is regarded as the beauty who made a great catch with Henry Gowan. However, this is being said by people who would not let their daughters marry such a guy/ scoundrel like Henry which is quite hypocritical. Pet does love Henry though despite all have his obvious flaws and Amy has observed that.
I loved the chapter about the dinner at Mr.Merdle's house and how Mr. Merdle and Lord Decimus needed the support of others to get to their "business".
The butler also seems to focus particularly on the reputation of the house of the Merdles. Everything has to be grand and it seems that he might be more snobbish than his employer. Everything is grand, a dinner for all the senses, and Mr Merdle takes his usually little bite of it. Nothing grand about that.
I was very much amused by the description of the Circumlocution Office trying to receive the money by Mr Dorrit. How troublesome some people can be trying to pay something. :-)
And then there is a new member in that club - Edmund Sparkler becomes one of the Lords of that honorable place. You do not need merits, but someone with connections to arrange such an appointment. As Mrs Merdle explicitly asked her husband to do something for her son I assume that he had not received a lot before besides a certain allowance thinking of the discussion we had in the previous thread.
What did you think of the almost divine status Mr Merdle has in society including the poorer people? He is almost worshipped like a god and infects everyone wi an investment virus. I had to think a little of Martin Chuzzlewit and the Anglo-Bengal insurance company that was a fake. I hope these ventures will not lead to poor people losing their last pennies.
We also learn (again) about the evil of debts. The Plornishes have a little shop now and do a lot of business, but never get paid for it. Everything is on credit, which might lead them into bankruptcy and maybe the Marshalsea in the end. However, their shop seems cute with the Happy Cottage painted on the door in the back.
Hedi wrote: "What did you think of the almost divine status Mr Merdle has in society including the poorer people? "A good point, Hedi. He is really considered a deity of sorts among those people. everyone wants to be him. This chapter was also interesting because it focused more on the supporting cast rather than major characters.
In Latin, there is a phrase "Pecunia non olet" that means that money does not stink, but in case of Mr. Merdle (merde in French is 'shit') it really does stink.
Mod
The supercilious butler reminded me of the one in the Downton Abbey finale that was shown recently, who was more of a stickler than the people he worked for.
Robin wrote: "There is the same adulation of rich people today in a lot of societies, why else would anyone pay attention to Donald Trump?The supercilious butler reminded me of the one in the Downton Abbey fin..."
You are so right, Robin. On the other hand, there are a number of rich but decent people who donate plenty of money for noble causes, but no one seems to be 'infatuated with' them. Maybe their personal 'reek' attracts people.
Zulfiya, you sound like Miss. Quilliam in the Quincunx. :-) And I agree.Robin, I see Trump as a Dickensian character. How many people in real life are Dickensian characters?
Tony Robbins. Definite Dickensian.
Renee wrote: "Tony Robbins. Definite Dickensian."Literally! I do not want to sound rude, but with his acromegaly, he is literally bigger-than life guy!
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Zulfiya, you sound like Miss. Quilliam in the Quincunx. :-) And I agree."The pleasure of reading two Victorian books simultaneously:-)
I really did not want to sound like this lady as I am still not sure about her convictions. I am more left off center, close to this center, but definitely on the left side of it.
There is nothing wrong with money; it is the way some people earn it or what happens to rich guys. It is a morality catalysis. Some become donald trumps (lower case intentional), and some become the signatory founders of the Giving Pledge.
As far as Rigaud is concerned, he certainly has a tendency towards ubiquitousness (he's a sort of omnipresent evil, I suppose), but Dickens does try to provide some explanation--especially in Amy's second letter. When she describes the Gowans to Mr. Clennam (at around the time Clennam meets Rigaud in London) she says: "Besides all this he [Mr. Gowan] has a friend who is much in his society both at home and away from home, though he treats this friend very coolly and is very uncertain in his behaviour to him. I am quite sure (because she [Pet] has told me so) that she does not like this friend." Then Little Dorrit goes on to say that Rigaud--for it is obviously he-- is "so revolting to me, too, that HIS BEING AWAY FROM HERE AT PRESENT [my emphasis, obviously] is quite a relief to my mind."
Mod
Robin, I see Trump as a Dickensian character. How many people in real life are Dickensian characters?"
I always thought Newt Gingrich was a Dickensian sounding name. He also suggested at one time that instead of custodians to clean schools, poor children should do it.
Robin wrote: "Xan wrothe: . . . Robin, I see Trump as a Dickensian character. How many people in real life are Dickensian characters?"I always thought Newt Gingrich was a Dickensian sounding name. He also suggested at one time that instead of custodians to clean schools, poor children should do it"
I agree with both of you. Those men are very Dickensian. Ugh!
Fanny and Sparkler: I don't think Fanny loves Sparkler at all. I suspect she wants to marry him for political and social reasons and getting revenge is an added bonus. She just seems like the type of woman who only does things to advance herself and her own agenda. She also knows he will be a pushover, which clearly appeals to her.
The portions of this section about investment immediately brought Bernie Madoff to mind. It seemed like there might be some sort of Ponzi scheme or other unethical business practices going on. I don't see this situation ending well.
I hate being political here, but the situation when he accused Clinton of having an affair (and rightly so) with the subsequent attempt to initiate an impeachment while he (Gingrich) was cheating on his sick wife is the true embodiment of HYPOCRISY. Dickens would have definitely 'recycled' him as a character. Now we have showed our true political colors :-)
Clara wrote: "As far as Rigaud is concerned, he certainly has a tendency towards ubiquitousness (he's a sort of omnipresent evil, I suppose), but Dickens does try to provide some explanation--especially in Amy's..."Clara, thank you for your clarifying quotations. Good job! I am sure everyone suspected that Mr. Rigaud had been shuttling in the story, but it nice to have quotes at hand to prove the point.
By the way, in this situation your name fits perfectly, e.g. thank you, Clara for clarifying. The pun was intended, but hopefully no offence taken.
Anne wrote: "Fanny and Sparkler: I don't think Fanny loves Sparkler at all. I suspect she wants to marry him for political and social reasons and getting revenge is an added bonus. She just seems like the type of woman who only does things to advance herself and her own agenda. She also knows he will be a pushover, which clearly appeals to her."How many unlikable characters can Dickens squeeze in into one novel?! It seems like this own is a unique book so far. There are characters that I utterly dislike and despise, and their name is legion.
Zulfiya wrote: "How many unlikable characters can Dickens squeeze in into one novel?! It seems like this one is a unique book so far. There are characters that I utterly dislike and despise, and their name is legion. "I was thinking the same thing.
Do people consider Mr Merdle to be unlikable? We might despise what he represents, and the media/society hysteria associated with him - but the person himself? He seems almost absent at the centre of the dinners, his company, the social whirl. As far as I can remember, we know very little about his background and - critically - his personality. He just doesn't seem to have one. He feels like a vacuum at the centre of a whirlwind.
Pip wrote: "Do people consider Mr Merdle to be unlikable? We might despise what he represents, and the media/society hysteria associated with him - but the person himself? He seems almost absent at the centre ..."You're right: Merdle is a vacuum, a sort of black hole even at his own dinner party. I wouldn't say he's unlikeable, exactly, but completely absent-minded - his thoughts are always elsewhere. He replies to a query by a Barnacle "slowly coming out of a long abstraction, in the course of which he had been fitting a tablespoon up his sleeve."
He's obviously only there on his wife's instructions to get a position for her son; he's not really interested in doing that, but has to be manoeuvred into it. He acts like somebody who's depressed.
Zulfiya wrote: "I hate being political here, but the situation when he accused Clinton of having an affair (and rightly so) with the subsequent attempt to initiate an impeachment while he (Gingrich) was cheating o..."So many phonies of all ideologies. What was it Billy Crystal said on Saturday night Live -- "It's better to look good than feel good." Well, it's better to look good than be good. Look like a CEO -- silver hair, thousand dollar suit, a certain air about you -- and you will be treated with respect regardless of what you say.
Everyone should have to wear t-shirts. Then what you say would be judged on . . . well . . . what you say. Imagine Trump, Gingrich, and a host of others wearing t-shirts (and being bald). Then let's see if what they say carries any weight.
I say we start a "Wear a t-shirt" movement. A debate?. All participants wear t-shirts (and lose the wigs). Now let's see you convince us to go to war.
I am not a tee girl. Dresses are my domain, BUT this is the only T-shirt I am willing to wear in public.https://www.pinterest.com/pin/5217843...
Emma wrote: "He [Mr Merdle] acts like somebody who's depressed."I also think he is depressed, and feel sorry for him.
Well, felt; I figured his wealth was fairly gained, until this last section where people think they're going to make a mint and keep repeating his name... that can't be good. Pyramid scheme?
Great t-shirt. I need to get one.
Mod
I felt a bit sorry for Mr Merdle. He's not enjoying life. He eats just a little plain food at the fancy dinner and doesn't interact with people. He's almost a puppet of his wife's. Or maybe another kind of prisoner? He certainly can't go off and do as he wishes (if he wishes for anything)
Robin wrote: "He [Mr Merdle] is almost a puppet of his wife's. Or maybe another kind of prisoner? ..."That's a good observation. Mr Merdle is shackled by other people's expectations of him. Before his dinner party he looks "far more like a man in possession of his house under a distraint (i.e. waiting for the bailiffs) than a commercial Colossus bestriding his own hearthrug." For all his wealth, he's less happy and comfortable with his lot than Mr Dorrit managed to be in the debtors' prison.
It's hard to know how much he's responsible for the spreading "infection" of investment in his funds - he seems to inspire confidence purely by the dazzling nature of his wealth. But from the way Dickens describes the rush to invest as equivalent to the Plague, it's already clear that this is going to end spectacularly badly.
What I was saying in my earlier post (#19) and everyone's comments seem to be based on it is there are a lot of unlikable characters and quite e few characters that I despise. I did not mean exactly Mr. Merdle, but other unpleasant individuals. To put it simply, and you may agree or disagree with it, in previous novels, I felt attached to some of his characters, I felt sorry for them, I re-lived their experience. There was at least one character whom my heart would choose to like and support.
In this novel, even Amy and Arthur seem to be detached and separated from me. The emotional touch that I usually experience is lost. It might have something to do with his pessimism and turbulent life, but it might be just the case with this novel.
A bit late here, but wanted to add my two cents about Mr. Merdle and the investments.Mr. Merdle appears to be an empty man, but what he represents is not. He reminds me of some of the mostly men we meet when looking at the 2008 financial financial crisis: money is the only thing that they live for, and they take everyone else for a ride - to their own detriment - in order to make that money. (One book that I liked on that subject was Matt Tiabbi's "Griftopia" - warning: filled with strong language).
And it does remind me of the Bernie Madoff type Ponzi schemes.
Mr. Pancks and everyone else - including Arthur it appears from the end of that last chapter - are most likely going to lose their money. And Mr. Merdle will be untouched. It will indeed be a 'sh*tty' situation.
Of course, I'm biased...I'm not a fan of Wall Street or these types of 'business' people.
Zulfiya wrote: "Or more pertinent to this project http://www.cafepress.com/mf/32518160/..."
Love this t-shirt!
Zulfiya wrote: "I hate being political here, but the situation when he accused Clinton of having an affair (and rightly so) with the subsequent attempt to initiate an impeachment while he (Gingrich) was cheating o..."Most of the members of Congress today would be prime material for Dickens, if he lived today.
I also would have like to see what Dickens would have done with the Hollywood types and the reality TV 'personalities.'
:-)
Not just bigger than life, but bigger than Hollywood types :-)
Less on topic, but my favorite literary T-shirt: “I’m just a Poe boy from a Poe family”:http://www.northernsun.com/Poe-Boy-Fr...
Abigail wrote: "Less on topic, but my favorite literary T-shirt: “I’m just a Poe boy from a Poe family”:http://www.northernsun.com/Poe-Boy-Fr..."
That's great!
Mod
Your right, Newt Gingrich is an absolutely Dickensian name and character. And just because I'm in the middle of a family Harry Potter film fest, it just occurred to me that HP is full of Dickensian names (and characters, except with magic!).
Poor Mr Merdle-intimidated by his own butler, forced to pay for lavish meals he can't enjoy and to entertain guests to whom he has nothing to say. It seems to me that Sparkler has chosen a wife very similar to his own mother.
Most of the supporting characters in Dicken's novels are typically treated with a great deal of leeway. This is not the case in this novel. It reflects his personal evolution on social and personal issues. It's complicated. There are plenty of jerks of all types in this book. He was a superstar caught up in a "scandalous" type of romantic relationship with a much younger actress that he worried would threaten his reputation and sales potential. He hid and denied it it for years. But this type of conflict parallels the issues in this story. He creates some empathy for Mr. Merdle, the moneymaker, the star maker machinery…. Unlike Gowan, who was just a creepy opportunist.
Frances wrote: "Pet has certainly been ill-used by Henry and his mother and friends, and I find it hard to understand why Henry married her in the first place, or was it only because he wanted to hurt her family..."I think Henry was an opportunist, seeing Pet as a source of income. He was probably genuinely attracted, but in a superficial and selfish way, by her prettiness and her meekness - a wife who will never contradict him. And she's in love with him, which of course is an attraction too.
But it's mostly about the money; as so much of this book is.
Mod
I'm assuming that Dickens was once again living through his principal character-in this case it is the "old" Clennam who tries to deny his attraction to much younger women and yet (I presume) will ultimately end up falling in love with (and marrying?) a much younger woman. (Which reminds me, I must resume reading the biography.)
Once again, though, I am somewhat repelled by the very young women who essentially sacrifice themselves and idolize their unworthy father/father figure-Amy reminds me of Little Nell, of Florence in Dombey and Son, of Mary Graham in Martin Chuzzlewit. Perhaps this is a Victorian trope of some sort but it never ceases to annoy me.
I must be reading it incorrectly because I don't see empathy for Mr. Merdle or that he is "poor Mr. Merdle." Especially if some of our guesses are correct and he's about to lose a great many people who can't afford to lose money, that money they've invested.
Lynnm wrote: "Most of the members of Congress today would be prime material for Dickens, if he lived today. I also would have like to see what Dickens would have done with the Hollywood types and the reality TV 'personalities.'"Me too!
There is a scene with Charles Dickens in a modern Doctor Who episode, "The Unquiet Dead." As the Doctor and Rose prepare to leave in the Tardis, Dickens looks very vulnerable and starts hinting about their knowledge of the future. Do people still read my writing in years to come? Will my books last into the future? (I wanted to comfort him and tell him "Yes! We are still reading your books and talking about them, after 150 years!") The Doctor, who has travelled in time everywhere from The Beginning to The End, gazes at him and says "Yes. For ever."
I got such a chill watching it.
Anyway, I would love to see him ripping on Congress and reality shows.
Mod
OK, to get back to the point of Dicken's view of Merdle.Compared to someone like Gowan, he is introduced and treated somewhat ambiguously, and with some redeeming qualities. It's tricky because his role is central to the main and secondary plots. He is never fully let off the hook for his actions, but he is revealed to have all kinds of anxiety issues of his own. Even at his luxury home he feels isolated and estranged. He has nobody to trust and fall back on. He does compel some sympathy. He is prone to panic attack types of episodes when it comes to socializing with his hangers on. He keeps his anxieties bottled up. Unlike his entourage, he is granted some amorphous humanity. He is not a happy big shot. He knows that he is operating in a bubble that can't be sustained. He is running a game that is never explained. But he knows it's doomed.
Frances wrote: "Pet has certainly been ill-used by Henry and his mother and friends, and I find it hard to understand why Henry married her in the first place, or was it only because he wanted to hurt her family f..."You forget that Mr. Gowan had financial reasons for wanting to marry Pet. It has also been suggested in various places that Gowan was in love with her (she is clearly very sweet and charming), though his ability to love anyone aside from himself is obviously quite feeble.
Bonnie - I loved that episode of Doctor Who!!! That and the one with Vincent van Gogh.
Mod
Robin wrote: "The supercilious butler reminded me of the one in the Downton Abbey finale that was shown recently, who was more of a stickler than the people he worked for."Robin I thought the exact same thing! I saw that episode too, a week ago Sunday.
Mod
Mr. Merdle appears to be depressed to me as well. In addition, we don't where the investment virus started. What I felt had happened was Merdle got Sparkler the job and into the lofty sphere of the Barnacles. Since the Barnacles seem to reign supreme, the lesser Barnacles may have started the admiration gossip which turned into the investment virus. I've not gotten the impression that Merdle is dishonest. Instead I feel he represents the money doesn't buy happiness adage. He's used as a foil as compared to the happier poor folks.
Fanny has motives in marrying Sparke. I think the "torturing" the bosom is her way of having some fun in a difficult situation, I think Fanny is concerned about her future. If her father marries Mrs. General and he dies, there is a very real possibility the wealth would not go to Fanny or Amy. Fanny doesn't want to go back to the old life so she's taking out an insurance policy by marrying Sparkler. In addition, she states pretty clearly that she doesn't want to dance to anybody else's tune - especially a husbands. She knows she can manipulate Sparkler so in effect he's a good (not happy perhaps) choice.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Mr. Blandois/Rigaud is ubiquitous. Originally, I thought there is a temporal incoherence in the narrative, and the two plot lines do not run concurrently, but one is slightly ahead in time (the one with the Gowans and the Dorrits) while the line with Arthur is slightly behind, but now there are some clues that indicate that they are virtually concurrent, namely Arthur reads Amy's letter and everyone (the Plornishes, Mr. Nandy, and even Little Maggie) are very excited about it.
Any explanations how Mr. Rigaud could be in two places at the same time? Maybe Dickens is misleading us :-)
As for other chapters, they are also interesting in their own peculiar way. First off, what do you think of Mrs. Clennam's angry emotional reaction when she asked Arthur to leave her house because she wanted to talk to Mr. Blandois?
What could they be talking about? What is she showing an obvious preference and choosing an outsider instead of her son?
Another interesting chapter about money and elections takes us back to Italy. Mr. Merdle and Lord Decimus are discussing something that can only be described in modern terms as 'gerrymandering'. Oh, yes, and we believed it was a modern election gimmick :-)
Yet again, another brilliant chapter about the Barnacles. It seems like the chapters about the Circumlocution Office are the most potent in this novel.
Finally, what do you think about the upcoming changes in Fanny's life? Why is she getting married? Is she in love? Is she confusing love wit anything else? Is she aware of her choice and what motivated her to make this decision and accept Mr. Sparkler's proposal?
P.S. A bone to chew on. Amy and submissiveness in marriage. Is Dickens being serious in this chapter or is he trying to placate the expectations of his reading audience? After all, he ... excuse my modern slang, 'dumped' his wife Catherine a year after the novel was finished, and one of the reasons is her submissiveness and her middle-of-the road, no personality type nature, well, according to what he said to his friends about Catherine.